Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform

1. Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform Community Modeling: The development, distribution and technical support of simulation software designed to serve the diverse needs of a community, and to be advanced through contributions from the community. Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

2. Objectives • 1. Represent physics associated with all terrestrial water • Include physics associated with the terrestrial water cycle, including flow and storage of ground water, vadose, streams, lakes, estuaries, glaciers, snow, etc. • 2. Accommodate parameters and physics over a wide range of scales • Include techniques for adjusting equations to accommodate scales from pores to continents; methods to up-scale and down-scale parameters. • 3. Flexibility to represent many physical, chemical and biological processes • Allow users to modify capabilities represented in the model to include deterministic or stochastic processes that depend on, or interact with, hydrology. Include processes from biology, ecology, environmental engineering, geomorphology, economics, etc. • 4. Ability to advance and modify capabilities using input from the community • Provide a mechanism for publishing and archiving both individual models, as well as code to improve functionality. The next generation of model should have a well-defined mechanism to grow through contributions from the community. • 5. Easy to use and readily available to community • Provide easy access to state-of-the-art simulation capabilities to all members of the hydrology community. • Visualization • Capabilities to display data and results of simulations to facilitate insights Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

3. More Objectives 7. Facilitate education Useful in the classroom to accelerate learning of modeling concepts and hydrologic processes 8. Execute simulations on single, or many parallel processors Take advantage of a wide range of existing and emerging computational capabilities 9. Couple with Ocean and Atmospheric Circulation Models The resulting system would provide state-of-the-art simulations of hydrologic processes over scales covering the entire planet. 10. Exchange data with Hydrologic Information System Access HIS to provide parameters and calibration data. HIS can also be a repository for simulations continental data model 11. Ability to estimate model parameters and characterize uncertainty from large data sets A suite of tools for calibrating to large, diverse data sets stored in HIS and generated at observatories and elsewhere. 12. Ability to represent stochastic processes Characterize stochastic distributions from data, represent stochastic forward models, generate stochastic fields, transition probabilities, facies, etc. Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

4. Forward Modeling Package Inverse Package Stochastic Package Visualization package Data package Modeling Platform Architecture Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

5. Packages on the Platform Forward package with general capabilities to represent multi-domain (all domains) of distributed hydrologic processes Inverse package with parameter estimation and optimization schemes Stochastic package with general geostatistical capabilities Visualization package with general graphical and data display capabilities Data package Store existing observational and computed data. Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

6. Kepler Darcy Newton Kelvin Communication and Growth • Publishing papers and giving talks has been the standard approach for building knowledge in science. • Good for communicating ideas • Time consuming to reproduce functionality described in a paperslows the pace of growth. A Better Way? Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

7. Data package • Publication of results from calibrated models • Serve as interpolation data for parameters • Provide resolution for continent-wide model • Revise when new results are availablegrowth Key to Growth: Peer-reviewed publication of functionality and data Forward Package Adler, P. M., and J.-F. Thovert. 1999. Fractures and Fracture Networks. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Advani, S. H., T. S. Lee, R. H. Dean, C. K. Pak, and J. M. Avasthi. 1997. Consequences of fluid lag in three-dimensional hydraulic fractures. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 21:229-240. Amadei, B., and O. Stephansson. 1997. Rock Stress and Its Measurement. Chapman Hall, New York. Bai, M., F. Meng, D. Elsworth, Z. Zaman, and J.-C. Roegiers. 1997. Numerical modeling of stress-dependent permeability. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 34:446. Bandis, S. C., A. C. Lumsen, and N. R. Barton. 1983. Fundamentals of rock joint deformation. Int. J. Rock Mech Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 20:249-268. Barthelemy, P., C. Jacquin, J. Yao, J.-F. Thovert, and P. M. Adler. 1996. Hierarchical structures and hydraulic properties of a fracture network in the Cuasse of Larzac. Journal of Hydrology 187:237-258. Bjerrum, L., and K. H. Andersen. 1972. In-situ measurement of lateral pressures in clay. Geotechnique 15:11-20. Bogdanov, I. I., V. V. Mourzenko, J.-F. Thovert, and P. M. Adler. 2003. Two-phase flow through fractured porous media. Physical Review E 68:026703-026701. • Forward Models • Capabilities advance based on needs of community • New modeling capabilities available quickly • Feedback on performance to developers • Peer-review ensures quality, provides value/prestige to authors. • High impact value will attract the best research • Beta test period before fully adopted? Stochastic Package Butler, J. J. 1998. The Design, Performance, and Analysis of Slug Tests. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton. Carbonell, R., Desroches, J., and Detournay, E. 1999. A comparison between a semianalytical and a numerical solution of a two-dimensional hydraulic fracture. Int. J. Solids Structures, 36(31-32), 4869–4888. Carter, R. D. 1957. Optimum fluid characteristics for fracture extension, Appendix to paper by C.C. Howard and C.R. Fast. Drilling and Prod. Prac, API:267. Chang H. 2004. Hydraulic Fracturing in Particulate Materials, Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. Chiles, J.-P., and G. d. Marsily. 1993. Stochastic models of fracture systems and their use in flow and transport modeling. Pages 169-236 in J. Bear, C. F. Tsang, and G. d. Marsily, editors. Flow and Contaminant Transport in Fractured Rock. Academic Press. Chudnovsky, A., J. Fan, T. Y. Shulkin, J. W. Dudley, J. Shlyapobersky, and R. Schraufnagel. 1996. A new hydraulic fracture tip mechanism in statistically homogeneous medium. Pages 275-286 in 71st Annual Technical Conference Society of Petroleum Engineers, Denver, CO. Inverse Package Bandis, S. C., A. C. Lumsen, and N. R. Barton. 1983. Fundamentals of rock joint deformation. Int. J. Rock Mech Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 20:249-268. Barthelemy, P., C. Jacquin, J. Yao, J.-F. Thovert, and P. M. Adler. 1996. Hierarchical structures and hydraulic properties of a fracture network in the Cuasse of Larzac. Journal of Hydrology 187:237-258. Bjerrum, L., and K. H. Andersen. 1972. In-situ measurement of lateral pressures in clay. Geotechnique 15:11-20. Bogdanov, I. I., V. V. Mourzenko, J.-F. Thovert, and P. M. Adler. 2003. Two-phase flow through fractured porous media. Physical Review E 68:026703-026701. Desroches, J., and B. J. Carter. 1996. Three-dimensional modeling of a hydraulic fracture. Pages 995-1002 in North American Rock Mechanics Symposium, NARMS'96, Montreal. Desroches, J., and M. Thiercelin. 1993. Modelling the propagation and closure of micro-hydraulic fractures. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts Data Package van Genuchten, M. T. 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44:892-898. Walsh, J. B. 1981. Effect of pore pressure and confining pressure on fracture permeability. Int. J. Rock Mech Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 18:429-435. Wang, H. 2000. Theory of Linear Poroelasticity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Warren, J. E., and P. J. Root. 1963. The behavior of naturally fractured reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineer Journal 3:245-255. Witherspoon, P. A., J. S. Y. Wang, K. Iwai, and J. E. Gale. 1980. Validity of cubic law for fluid flow in a deformable rock fracture. Water Resources Research 16:1016-1024. Zimmerman, R. W., and I. Main. 2004. Hydromechanical behavior of fractured rocks. Pages 363-421 in Y. Gueguen and M. Bouteca, editors. Mechanics of fluid-saturated rocks. Elsevier, Boston. Visualization Package Cooper, H. H., J. D. Bredehoeft, and I. S. Papadapolous. 1967. Response of a finite diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water. Water Resources Research 3:263-269. Dent, D., M. Paprzycki, and A. Kucaba-Pietal. 2002. Studyting the performance of nonlinear systems solvers applied to the random vibration test. Pages 473-478 in 3rd International Conference on Large-Scale Scientific Computing. Cook, A. M., L. R. Meyer, N. G. W. Cook, and F. M. Doyle. 1990. The effect of tortuosity on flow through a natural fracture. in W. A. Hustrulid and G. A. Johnson, editors. Rock Mechanics Contributions and Challenges, Proc. 31st U.S. Syposium on Rock Mechanics. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Modeling Platform Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

8. Forward model, options 1.Couple existing models Selected analytical, numerical models Couple together with OpenMI, CCA… 2. Revise existing models Ed, Chris, Reed… 3.New Approach Hydrologic Multiphysics • Commercial (Comsol, ANSYS, CFD-ACE, ABACUS/ Simulia…) • Open source (Salome, OpenFOAM, Elmer…) Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

9. Hydrologic Multiphysics geometry parameters mesh physics solver results Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

10. Performance ComparisonResearch code development • Write new code • Modify existing source code • Include new module Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

11. Write new code Example: Flow through deformable fracture • DFrx code [Murdoch and Germanovich, 2006] • Laminar/turbulent flow through fracture in elastic material. Propagation possible • Continuity+momentum+elasticity • Finite difference + semi-analytical + coupling • 100 pages of Fortran source • Time required: 2 years • Multiphysics implementation • Same physics and coupling as above • Time required: 1 week Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

12. Modify existing source code • Example: Flow of power-law fluid through porous media to evaluate experiments • T2VOC • Rewrite viscosity function • Modification of Fortran source • Time required: 4 months • Multiphysics implementation • Include • Time required: 30 minutes + 1 day to check Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

13. Include existing module • Fresh water lens over saltwater • MODFLOW+SEAWAT • Include libraries, set-up solver in GUI • Read about module • Get it to run • Time required: 7 hours • Multiphysics implementation • Include • Time required: 1 minute + 10 minutes to check Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

14. Comparison Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

15. Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground Multiphysics Multiscale Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

16. Dissolution of a stream bed Surface water Bed dissolution + moving boundary Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

17. Dissolution of a stream bed Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

18. Advantages • Huge flexibility in designing analyses, wide range of problems in hydrology and related • Capabilities beyond most hydro models • Fast to set-up • Easy to communicate new methods • Access to equations; good for modification, good for teaching • Built on Matlab, so powerful opportunities for coupling with optimization, stochastic, image processing, visualization, other. Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

19. Current limitations • Geometries designed for engineering, more work needed for hydrologic geometries, irregular geometries in 3-D • Some applications are slow, need work on formulation and verification • Parallel processor capability available, but currently optimized only for a few processors • License Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

20. Forward Modeling Package Selected existing models, include HM Inverse Package Stochastic Package Visualization package Data package Modeling Platform Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

21. General Approach geometry parameters mesh physics solver results Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

22. Conclusion • Objectives • Architecture • Publication • HM Evaluation Project Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch

23. Objectives 1. Represent physics associated with all terrestrial water 2. Accommodate parameters and physics over a wide range of scales 3. Flexibility to represent many physical, chemical and biological processes 4. Ability to advance and modify capabilities using input from the community 5. Easy to use and readily available to community 6. Visualization 7. Facilitate education 8. Execute simulations on single, or many parallel processors 9. Couple with Ocean and Atmospheric Circulation Models 10. Exchange data with Hydrologic Information System 11. Ability to estimate model parameters and characterize uncertainty from large data sets 12. Stochastic processes Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform, Larry Murdoch